PS3: Pros and cons up until now
Associated Content explores Sony's pros and cons in how they've handled their PS3 campaign up until now. From the article: "The PS3 has caused quite a stirring over the past 2 years: from a general excitement to astonishment to disappointment. How did this happen? Let's look at what Sony did right, and what they did wrong, and every shades of gray in between." The list is organized as follows:
PROS
- The technical power of the Cell
- Blu-ray: more space (52G) is only a good thing
- PlayStation is still the leader in the gaming industry
- PSX, PS2 backwards compatibility (huge library of games)
- Strong 3rd-party support
- Controller: motion-sensing addition only a good thing
- Online play (though still lackluster)
- Standard harddrives
- 1080p high definition gaming
- Web browsing, just like the PSP
- Connection to the PSP to enhance gameplay
- Cost: we've said it a million times
- Blue-Ray: too expensive storage medium
- Size: the thing is big
- High game prices
- Architecture: Cell is too unique and could cause developer problems
- No rumble
- Even with redundancy, PS3 might have high defects at launch
- Despite its strengths, the PS3 will only be marginally better than its competitors
- Ken Kutaragi (will ruin the PS3?)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
BPM? @ Aug 1st 2006 5:35PM
Something that worries me about PS3 is how reliable the hardware will be. Sony's past systems aren't exactly known for how long they last...
Any guarantee that your $500/600 "investment" won't start getting Disc Read Errors within a few days/weeks/months?
Hopefully, Sony will make it more reliable...
renaldo @ Aug 1st 2006 5:40PM
Pro #12: Metal Gear Solid 4.
X @ Aug 1st 2006 5:42PM
The "PROS" list is weak! I'm sorry, I can NOT justify the P$3 being a better system...
chris w @ Aug 1st 2006 5:43PM
i was reading an issue of EGM this weekend and i came across the E3 interview of (then) SCEA president Kaz Hirai. he had all the normal ps3 junk in there, but while I was reading the comment about "PS3's backward compatability list" (ps1, ps2) i soon remembered a historic gaming company (atari) and its similar boastfulness. I remembered that back in the 80's, atari also boasted about having "loads of" games to play. But now, looking back, i remember that over time that was the bane of having the atari system; so many games that were crap, how can you decide what's good and what's bad? There were no quality controls in place; I even remember an atari developer (paraphrasing) "it doesn't matter what type game we make, even it it's crap, people will still buy it and we millions".
That mentality seems to be the same for Sony in today's market. They are so impressed over their brand name recognition, they believe that they truly can trumpet up their backward compatability list. But if you look at the "7,000" ps1/2 titles, how many are mediocre at best? and how many truly do suck? They're strikingly similar comments of the atari days of old; sure, having thousands of games looks good on paper, but with no quality control, how many do you want to own, or would spend hours of your time playing?
Thank God Nintendo still has high quality standards for gaming FUN, not MO-fun-EY like Sony does...I think that's aother reason Nintendo deserves more of a fighting chance that Sony ever will.
It is such a parallel of atari back in the day. but the alarming idea for me is that no one else in media has picked up on it. Is it just me, or has the gaming community as a whole just sat back and swallowed everything sony gives us? IMO, we have for far too long and they use their backward library (of 90%) crap as a benefit. I see it as disturbing; what does this trend teach us for the future of Sony? continually loose standards for games; as long as you make a profit...yada yada...
bv @ Aug 1st 2006 5:44PM
Pros:
1.) E305 demo presentation. Killzone, Killing Day, Stranglehold, Moto Storm...They all caused me to be a Ps3 fanboy.
2.) 2 hdmi outputs. It just sounded awesome even though i would never use it.
Cons:
1.) Failure to unveil any information on whether the demos were realtime or not. Failed to announce any new details on the PS3 in general until March 15th 2006 when kutaragi made an appearance at a suprise press conference.
2.) E3 2006 was basically a rehash of 2005 without Killzone, further proving to everyone that the real time demo was a load of lies. The demos this year consisted of Giant Crab battles and how to use your psp as a rear view mirror. Fanboys around the world were crushed when the games didn't live up to the hype. Further crushing began when the price was announced.
3.) Lack of proprietary titles. Devil May Cry is now being made exclusively for the 360. That leaves Metal Gear Solid 4 (which may see a place on the 360 after word spread that kojima revealed it was technically possible), tekken 6, and hot shots golf. The 360 is sharing the same hit games that could have made the ps3 a potential buy. GTA4, Sonic the Hedgehog, all the EA franchises, etc. They all exist on a system with a much lower price tag and equally powerful hardware. Really, i see no point in purchasing a PS3, what can it possibly offer me that the 360 can't? Don't say blu-ray because the 360 is already lauching their equally powerful hd-dvd add on in the coming months.
Really, can anyone think of valid reasons why a PS3 is worth buying?
Clint @ Aug 1st 2006 5:48PM
The online can't be considered "still lackluster" when the idiots haven't tried it yet. They have no idea what the online is going to be like. That could be Sony's big surprise for all we know. The person who wrote that article has no idea about the online play.
BPM? @ Aug 1st 2006 5:48PM
bv, the E3 2005 model of PS3 had two HDMI ports, the E3 2006 (and is closer to the final model) only has one (for the $600 model; the $500 model has no HDMI).
chris w, there are a lot of God-awful games on all of Nintendo's systems, too. While most (but not all) of the stuff Nintendo makes is pretty good (if not great), there's still rubbish published on the systems. For GameCube, Aquaman and Charlie's Angels come to mind.
Michael @ Aug 1st 2006 5:49PM
The biggest pro for me, the -reason- I need a PS3, is the phenomenal First-party.
Incognito, Naughty-Dog, Polyphony Digital, Zipper, Factor 5, Psygnosis...
The next game from Team ICO (!!!)
Yes, these companies are why I will own a PS3.
Todd @ Aug 1st 2006 5:50PM
Reliability is a top concern for me since both Blu-Ray and Cell processors are brand new technology and because of such are more likely to have problems. Reliability problems is what killed the Sony fanboy in me a long time ago.
Player1 @ Aug 1st 2006 5:50PM
I'll tell you why the PS3 is worth buying: Entitlements!
Quann @ Aug 1st 2006 5:50PM
If MGS4 doesn't make it to the X360 then I will have to pick up a PS3, or just rent it.
bv @ Aug 1st 2006 5:51PM
BPM, i realize that. My pros are referring to 2005's promises.
marcin @ Aug 1st 2006 5:52PM
devil mat cry is xbox exclusive now?
eng050599 @ Aug 1st 2006 5:52PM
Pros;
One word (company actually) SquareEnix. There has been no confirmation that Final Fantasy XIII will be relseased on any console other than PS3. Also to a previosu poster, there has been no conformation that Devil May Cry 4 will be released on 360 exclusively. In fact the majority of the information out there indicates an initial release on PS3, followed by releases for 360 and Wii.
Designerbradr @ Aug 1st 2006 5:53PM
bv said:
"Really, can anyone think of valid reasons why a PS3 is worth buying?"
Only one I can think of is to resell and mark-up the price during launch shortages for insane profit.
... but even now I'm not so sure the demand will be that high...
Belcho @ Aug 1st 2006 5:54PM
The price of the games is the biggest thing for me. The hardware is only a 1-time ass rape, so the sting of that goes away after a while. Right now I have a hard time justifying $60 for AAA 360 games now! There's no way I'd pay $10-$20 on top of that for the same game on the PS3.
bv @ Aug 1st 2006 5:55PM
Nevermind my Devil May Cry for the 360 speel, i guess it was a rumor:
http://www.pixelgamers.com/xbox360/news/1000628/35/ps3-exclusive-devil-may-cry-no-more.html.rss
bv @ Aug 1st 2006 5:56PM
Designerbradr,
I think that may be the best and only reason to purchase one, haha.
Eric @ Aug 1st 2006 5:56PM
Pros: Strong game franchises, Metal Gear Solid 4, can make a tasty burger while draining the fat
Cons: Crappy launch lineup.
DG @ Aug 1st 2006 5:58PM
Ha ha...You guys posted something from Associated Content? Really? Associated Content will pay anybody for anything. There are absolutely zero standards. They solicit stories from anyone who wants to be paid -- opinion and reviews seem to be most coveted -- and pay $5 or so for each story.
Chih Chang is just some guy with a website. He's not a tech writer of note. Just some guy who wanted to get "published."
How do I know all this? AC gave me $5 for my review of Charlie & the Chocolate Factory. You might as well post that too.
Karmakin @ Aug 1st 2006 6:03PM
In a PS3 dominated industry, I'd be worried about a developer arms race, via Blu-Ray. You'd have a case where costs spiral for little economic benefit, probably resulting in much less innovation and risktaking.
I suspected DMC4 for the PS3 was a gonner as that it was a complete no-show at E3....but for the Wii, that's kind of a surprise. Capcom seems to be throwing down for the 360, trying to become a major publisher (and between Dead Rising and Lost Planet...it's looking good)
chris w @ Aug 1st 2006 6:04PM
"chris w, there are a lot of God-awful games on all of Nintendo's systems, too. While most (but not all) of the stuff Nintendo makes is pretty good (if not great), there's still rubbish published on the systems. For GameCube, Aquaman and Charlie's Angels come to mind."
True, but I'm sure Nintendo didn't slap a seal of approval on there either.
My point is Sony has no checks and balances for quality control on their software. They could care less if a developer wants to publish crap on the system. Whereas a company like Nintendo looks at titles and if it meets strict standards, then they slap an approval sticker on it. Microsoft doesn't have a label or anything like that either, but they do have better standards than Sony. For example, their BCL has the MAJORITY of good selling, quality titles; not all, but most. whereas Sony, "Look at all our titles!!!"
On behalf of Sony Corp. "GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME, GIMME!"
dave @ Aug 1st 2006 6:15PM
1- Cell. Provides a bit more power than the 360 can expect, but is hugely difficult to produce (10% yields are a bitch) and means the price will stay high for awhile. Which in turn makes the 360 more expensive as MS won't price drop until sony does.
2-BLU Ray. Devs are being forced to use Blu ray. Many fo the early ps2 games were on CD's ebcause they didn't need the space and it was cheaper for the dev. PS3 Blu ray discs are pricey, and developpers being forced to use them only means increased production costs. And that means goodbye to games not produced by giant studios, and hello massive selection of ports and sequels. Increased disc space doesn't mean more content. Because someone has to program it in. What it means is dev can keep using masive amounts of scripted events instead of AI, and FMV instead of in engine stuff, and they will not be forced to use PGC.
3-Playstation is leader. That doesn't make it better. nintendo was once industry leader, and so was sega in the US. Remind me again what happened to them?
4-BWC. ....except for memory cards, peripherals and rumble. That FFX save you are wqorking on where everyone is maxed out? Gone. Your collection of meticulously crafted mechs form the armored core games? Gone. Your San Andreas svae with 100%? Gone. To play non gimped versions of your favorite games, upi will HAVE to keep your PS2. Which negates the entire function of BWC.
5- Third Party Support. An increasingly small third party support as games go over to the 360 or aren't even made on the PS3 at all because of its reqyuirements. The top 3 selling franchises of the past generation are all available for xbox 360. The other two consoles have impressive third party lineups as well, and with their prices, you'll actually be able to afford them. And both competitors will have much higher game counts when the PS3 launches, and they won't be composed primarily of racing games (like the PS3)
6-Controller. WRONG. Motion sensing is only a good thing when done well. The PS3 controller requires you to move your entire arm to play, and that gets tiring and causes repetetive stress injuries over time. And it comes at the expense of a great feature which the other two have, that didn't hurt your hands. Need i also mention that the other controllers both have a longer battery life than the dual shock 3, which is hoped to get almost 25 hours? Never mind how there is no method to replace a degraded battery, unlike the others. It is also using a controller design that is effectively 15 years old. Both competitors have much more ergonomic controller desings and they both have features that this one doesn't.
7-Online play: vastly inferior to xbox live because sony is forcing devs to host on their own servers. It is in essence, PS2 online but with a whole bunch of non gaming features. And they still will be charging for DLC, whereas for the other two consoles at least a portion of that is free.
8- Standard Hard drive. Harddrives whihc are needed to cache data on everygame to cover up the slow bluray load speed. Harddrives, the loss of whom will probably be downright fatal to the system. The Tard Pack for the 360 is dumb, but developpers cane easily cache data on a ahrddrive if it is there. Because no one buys the tard pack.
9- 1080p. High def gaming 99% of the user base cannot see. The number of HDTV units that can actually display 1080p is extremely small. Yet sony is forcing developpers to make 1080p standard, which means more cost, more time, and more disc space eaten up.
10-Web browsing, just like the PSP. Shouldn't this be a con? PSP web browsing is ass. Hell, DS web browsing is ass, just less ass. And who is going to spend 600 US to do something they can already do, and need to do in order to see this list?
11-Connection to the PSP to enhance gameplay. Hooray! Cause that worked SOOOO well with the gamecube.I personally, can't wait to buy a half-dead bastard media player machine for 200$ so I can have a rearview mirror that loses battery power after 3 hours of use.
dolemite @ Aug 1st 2006 6:18PM
this list ain't half bad, but who is this guy? And as for nintendo's SEAL OF QUALITY, since they manufactured most if not all the cartridges teh #rd parties had to gbuy, then they put their seal on almost all the games. Yes, Nintendo makes quality games that keep their franchises in good standing, but they had some stinker 3rd party stuff too. In this day and time of cross platform games, when it sucks on one platform it probably sucks on the others too. And SOny needs to get better PR people. we live in the internet age when anything you say will be dissected within minutes. and lets see the actual game prices before we talk about them. I see the sneaky way publishers are getting 70-80 per game now on the Xbox 360. 59.99 at retail, and then multiple downloads you have to buy, even though the stuff should have been in the retail version in the 1st place. And what's up with the so-called Collectors editions for 10 bucks more?
sjenky @ Aug 1st 2006 6:19PM
The only concern I have is the high development costs. One of the few western companies that has the financial resources to cram out 1080p compatible games is EA.
And well, lord knows we already have enough EA games overshadowing the truly innovative games on our store's shelves.
As for Japanese games, they tend to stick to the tried and true "2D underaged Anime heroes save the world against all odds" formula.
I'm still gonna buy the PS3 though, if only to FINALLY use that HDMI port on my TV.
Bob Santos @ Aug 1st 2006 6:21PM
WHOOOOO!!! 1080p!!! the only TRUE high-def!!! err.. wait.. doesn't the core system lack HDMI... which is required for 1080p... .... ... and umm.. raise your hand if you have a 1080p TV.
Ryan @ Aug 1st 2006 6:27PM
Bob Santos,
HDMI is not required for 1080p. However, BluRay manufacturers have the option of forcing 480p on discs played without HDMI. Now that hurts.
AoE @ Aug 1st 2006 6:28PM
wait... blu-ray is a pro? For storage space, okay (although let's not confuse things; 52Gb would be the storage capacity, if they could get dual-layer blu-ray disks to work; RIGHT NOW blu-ray only supports 26Gb; roughly 4Gb LESS than HD-DVD does at this very moment; still 26Gb is quite a bit more than a regular dvd)... but did you see the side-by-side comparison of the first 3 movies that are on both blu-ray and hd-dvd? Let's just say I'm glad the 360 addon's going to be HD-DVD and not Blu-Ray....
here's a link to the slashdot post about it:
http://slashdot.org/articles/06/08/01/1556229.shtml
A note to Sony: It's not too late to change the name from PS3 to albatross...
Weasler @ Aug 1st 2006 6:29PM
Number ten in the cons, Connection to the PSP to enhance gameplay is very gimmicky and stupid. Number eleven, Cell processor prone to catching on fire.
.ce @ Aug 1st 2006 6:30PM
chris w., i agree with the fact that sony probably has the highest number of crap games among all the developers but...i think we should take into consideration that...they DO have the MOST games, and thus should have a higher probability of having crap games(but its not a justification)...still over all....i dont see the PS3 as a promising buy.
And here is why:
1.) the games are expensive...over-priced...for JUST a game
2.) the cell is "unique"...and reliability is quite important...
3.) the PS3 is quite too expensive, when there are other consoles made by other developers that are just as good if not better and costs less...
CaptNink @ Aug 1st 2006 6:32PM
@ #5
Clit,
If the PS3 online service was anything exciting, we would have heard about it by now.
SuicideNinja @ Aug 1st 2006 6:38PM
For me, the only PROs are the exclusive titles.
The Cell and Bluray technologies have to be eased in, not forced in.
The console is downright ugly in my opinion. It's trying too hard to look futuristic. I'm already trying to figure out where I can hide it so I don't have to look at it.
The pricing is bad. Really bad. Large up front costs are always a deterrent. The games prices will amplify the problem.
I have no faith in Sony's ability to pull off a decent online service. Even if they do, I expect it will be overrun by modders and hackers quite quickly (free=easy target).
I already grew out of the Dualshock controller...but we're still stuck with it. Hopefully they stiffen up those floppy analog sticks. And put rumble back in the controllers.
Sony has just left a multitude of reasons to wait for a price drop on the PS3. That's what I'm doing. Nintendo gets my money this year; maybe we'll meet in '07, PS3?
Fan @ Aug 1st 2006 6:45PM
I can think of a couple of good reasons to buy a PS3. Like:
Motorstorm
Heavenly Sword
The Naughty Dog Project
Final Fantasy
Assasins Creed
The new game from the people behind ICO and SOTC
Metal Gear Solid 4
Resident Evil 5
Grand Turismo 5
All of these and more great games are coming to the PS3. If you do not like any of the above mentioned games then you have bad taste.
The PS3 will have the biggest install base, the 360 will come second and the Wii will be third. Deal with it.
Im getting a PS360 ftw. I cant miss out on games like Alan Wake, Gears of War and Dead Rising. Im just on the fence now with the 360 because there are no good games out IMHO.
Darth Pixel @ Aug 1st 2006 6:45PM
CONS 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 are bogus.
It's going to be a great platform for gamers and for not-lazy, smart developers.
Wait until you see Coded Arms Assault running at 60 FPS.
You need to remember this: Sony just needs to produce 1 amazing game that cannot be replicated on Xbox 360...and the reputation of PS3 will be sealed.
I have seen gameplay videos that tell me a lot of people are going to be pleasantly surprised at what PS3 can do.
Azrael @ Aug 1st 2006 6:46PM
Ken Kutaragi is number 9? let me guess, you ran out of reasons by 5 did you?
If you want to be straight honest theres only one HUGE flaw with the PS3: is expensive, extremely expensive.
Blu ray, rumble, lack of online or even lack of games
are just temporary setbacks, but the initial price has no fixing. (at least in a reasonable time)
I have a number 9 actually, "Sony has the worst PR ever!" it seems they actually want the company to have bad Publicity. Each statement is even more moronic than the last! what was the last one? the "entitlements" thing?
But truth to be told... the PS3 is probably the best console out there (and the game library for 2007 is hawt!) unfortunately almost no one will be able to buy it. its a shame.
Maybe analysts are right (for once) and PS3 will outsell everyone by 2008.
Ryan @ Aug 1st 2006 6:50PM
Darth Pixel,
I would not throw down $600 for one measly game. Sony's gonna need an army of AAA exclusives, and with the rise of PS3 production costs and the already-begun development drop-outs, it ain't looking too pretty for Sony. It really is a shame, especially given the power of the console itself. Perhaps it's just a little too next-gen.
Dracula Jones @ Aug 1st 2006 6:51PM
I still hate the rounded top of the box. You think that was a conscious design decision?
"Make it convex so that none may sit atop it! Thus may it rise to the pinnacle of the component stack!"
CON.
CaptNink @ Aug 1st 2006 6:55PM
"But truth to be told... the PS3 is probably the best console out there"
A bold statement considering the unit hasn't even been released yet. What are you basing this on?
Ryan @ Aug 1st 2006 7:00PM
Azrael,
You have hit the nail on the head. However, I think the future prospect of the inevitable "price drop" will hurt the PS3 even more than the huge price tage itself. Many gamers may hold off until the PS3 drops in price, leaving $600 consoles sitting on store shelves collecting dust. If that happens, it may be a very long time before we see a price drop. Even then, Sony will be taking an even bigger hit on their bottom line by selling something that costs them exactly the same to manufacture (or marginally less) for a significantly less price.
Couple that in with decreasing third-party support (because of less-than-expected sales out of the gate and rising development costs), and you've got the tsunami after the earthquake. In case this sounds familiar, you might want to ask Nintendo to clarify the mechanics behind this model.
And yes, it is a shame. It's a shame that a company that used to be so in touch with its consumer base has completely lost its way. It's a shame that developers are having to crank out big bucks for a marginal increase in return. It's a shame that we the consumer are being asked to pay the equivalent of four DVDs for one video game. It's just a shame, Sony.
Metaly @ Aug 1st 2006 7:01PM
Something about the PS3 that's been pretty underhyped (or maybe just under-discussed) is its lack of a region lock. I'd like to know whether that any PS3 is guaranteed to play games from any region, or if it's still an option for developers to region protect their own titles, or what. What I'm most interested in, though, is whether the PS3 (an American one, let's say) will be able to play Japanese PS1 and PS2 games out of the box. $600 is way too much to pay for a PS3 as-is, but if it would make it easy to play a bunch of older import titles, I might even pick one up at launch.
Neil @ Aug 1st 2006 7:06PM
Nice list, most of the cons seems to be cost. So if you're rich then have it. For everyone else who is bringing in the 360 comparison: WE ALL KNOW YOU PREFER THE XBOX 360 SO SHUT UP ALREADY.
apoc06 @ Aug 1st 2006 7:12PM
My take:
PROS
7. Online play (though still lackluster)
How can they call it lackluster when it hasn't been revealed. If they are trying to base it off of the psp's current network infrastructure, they're making a gross assumption. Network play has not been fully revealed. From what they have been saying, the PSPs infrastructure mode will be rebuilt to utilize the same network. This will be something new and untested. Same as cell and rsx and 1080p gaming and... basically all the rest of the PS3. Great? No, its too early to tell, but lackluster is definitely the wrong word.
CONS
2. Blue-Ray: too expensive storage medium
The premium for blu-ray is pennies. Do people forget that single blank discs may cost one price, but in the manufacturing world that cost is spread wider? Lest we forget: carts are still almost, if not more expensive to create than stamping blu-ray games.
Example: a blank blu-ray disc costs $20, but a blu-ray movie can be bought for $24. That same movie on dvd costs $20. It may be more expensive, but I don't expect anything outrageous.
3. Size: the thing is big
Depending on how well it works, people might ignore this one, since it is still the size of most A/V components. Personally, I dont care about the size so much as the noise level and the internal cooling system. If it runs quiet and isn't prone to overheating, I can accept anything smaller than a PC. LOL. [thats a joke...]
4. High game prices
We don't have any idea what games will cost yet. See section on blu-ray for my reasoning. I expect games to be around the same price as xbox360 games. Sounds like price points are undecided.
5. Architecture: Cell is too unique and could cause developer problems
With the exception of the five or so uber-developers, I don't really see the big deal here. Developers will get the most out of the system if the power is there and they find it financially feasible to develop on the PS3.
Think: PS2. What publisher is going to abandon the PS3 if it becomes market leader? If the programmers don't like the cell, the publishers will find programmers that do. It's a JOB people, not a pastime.
8. Despite its strengths, the PS3 will only be marginally better than it's competitors
We have yet to see any proof on this one. Just the other day I read pretty interesting speculation about the RSX being much more powerful than previously expected. http://ps3forums.com/viewtopic.php?p=527130#527130
Who knows? I certainly don't. All I know is the "marginally more powerful" statements come from games that were run on non-final hardware displayed at non-target resolution. If the PS3 launch games in their current state look like current xbox360 games, doesn't logic tell us that they will look better than xbox360 on the final [and more powerful] hardware and once the games are actually done?
I mean if developers [even Hideo Kojima] only found out at e3 about the controller changes and rumble removal, who is to say that there are not more changes in store? There are alot of unknowns at play. The final hardware could be worse for all we know. Games could stutter down to 15fps at 1080p.
I think its way too early to give PS3 pros and cons, since despite what we do know of it, the majority of the PS3 is a mystery.
mcloki @ Aug 1st 2006 7:18PM
For all the Xboxers poo-pooing the Blue ray drive. You still have to go out and buy a player for any nHDTV movies goodness. Penny wise ( I paid less for an xbox 360 than a ps3) pound foolish (I still have to buy a high def player for $500)
And don' give me that $350 at Walmart stuff and dare call yourself next gen. Microsoft hosed you and who knows if in a year when things aren't working Microsoft doesn't comeout with something else to buy ala Zune. Plays for Unsure?
blah @ Aug 1st 2006 7:22PM
some of this pros and cons are iffy at best.
when did blu-ray start offering 52 gigs? its 50 gigs for dual layers. Yes its a nitpicking.
web browsing? Look at webtv, msntv and every other web browsing via your television. They never took off. Its a bonus to have but really its been done before and in this day and age with computers being so cheap its not really a needed feature.
Size. Okay so its big, bigger than that of the original xbox. Ps2 fanboys used size as one of the many reasons against the xbox but in all seriousness does it really matter. I have 400 disc dvd changer. the xbox, ps3, 360 are tiny suckers compared to it.
Canadian Gamer @ Aug 1st 2006 7:30PM
If PS3 can match Xbox Live with no experience I'll be amazed. Personally, and I'm not saying that this is important for everyone, but I only play Live Games now. I have never even played the BF:MC2 single player campaign - why bother? I have played over 250 hours on line however!!! Halo2 same thing - once through the campaign and never again - online I've played over 200 hours!
PS3 online will make or break the PS3 IMHO.
loomis @ Aug 1st 2006 7:33PM
Cost, Cost, Cost, yes it's expencive, but gaming is my hobby so $199, $399 or $599... nextgen is going to cost me a lot of money. Show me the games! then i'll decide what systems to buy.
fancyboy @ Aug 1st 2006 7:35PM
test
jc @ Aug 1st 2006 7:39PM
My concern is load times... what is the PS3 being sold with? a 2xBDR? vs the X360's 16xDVD or is it 32x?
Load times are long enough for a 720p game like Oblivion, I couldn't imagine that game loading on a slower drive while trying to push 1080p.
Hopefully I am wrong, but I have a feeling we are going to see long load screens.
Staticneuron @ Aug 1st 2006 7:45PM
Wow! is that it?
"1. Cost: we've said it a million times"
And the hardware justifies the cost.
"2. Blue-Ray: too expensive storage medium"
Br disks are expensive? or is it the palyer you are talking about? Can you tell me the % of the PS3's cost that is taken up by the BR drive?
"3. Size: the thing is big"
Somewhat petty but understandable.
"4. High game prices"
Really? Wahat are the prices of the launch games?
" 5. Architecture: Cell is too unique and could cause developer problems"
Which leads to developer claims that the PS3 is easier to program for than the PS2 by compari..... oh.. ummm.
"6. No rumble"
I for one will miss it...... for about 30 seconds.
7". Even with redundancy, PS3 might have high defects at launch"
Might.... very strong point there.
"8. Despite its strengths, the PS3 will only be marginally better than its competitors"
Don't tell me.... your using "multi-platform generic title A" to base your comparisons on......
"9. Ken Kutaragi (will ruin the PS3?)"
Krazy K has always said some off the wall stuff.....period.
Staticneuron @ Aug 1st 2006 7:58PM
"Fanboys around the world were crushed when the games didn't live up to the hype. Further crushing began when the price was announced."
They had playable demo's on the floor which were not made with the final kit. What was to be expected. If people were hoping for brilliance they are really "pathetic to begin with. There has to be time for the dev to acclimate to the hardware.
"3.) Lack of proprietary titles. Devil May Cry is now being made exclusively for the 360. That leaves Metal Gear Solid 4 (which may see a place on the 360 after word spread that kojima revealed it was technically possible), tekken 6, and hot shots golf. The 360 is sharing the same hit games that could have made the ps3 a potential buy. GTA4, Sonic the Hedgehog, all the EA franchises, etc. They all exist on a system with a much lower price tag and equally powerful hardware. Really, i see no point in purchasing a PS3, what can it possibly offer me that the 360 can't? Don't say blu-ray because the 360 is already lauching their equally powerful hd-dvd add on in the coming months."
They said dante might come to the 360. The sidesteped the issue of it actually being a DMC sequel. Kojima
revealed that what was possible in the alpha kits could be attained on the 360. He was not going to build the game to Sony's proposed specs. I would only see this as revelant if he said so of the final dev kit. The PSx and the PS2's very large stable of great games and notorious sad launches, leaves me optimistic because these games don't look as bad as the previous systems lineup. No game maker is going to dev for the HD dvd unless it has a very large base which gives the BR in the PS3 a huge advantage for at least a year or more.
"Really, can anyone think of valid reasons why a PS3 is worth buying?"
The hundred plus titles I have "enjoyed" for my PS2. I f the PS3 can rebuild that stable then there isn't even a question of "why" it should be purchased just when.